In a different context, the Republican Party might cheer one of the fundamental tenets of the health care law, a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance.

It’s just the sort of thing that would fit squarely within the GOP’s bedrock principle of individual responsibility — ensuring that no one puts a strain on the system by showing up for costly emergency room visits, then expecting everyone else to pick up the tab.

Text Size

-

+

reset

POLITICO 44

Instead, Republicans have made the individual mandate the focus of their attacks on President Barack Obama’s health care law, saying it’s a dangerous overreach of government authority that sets the nation on the slippery slope of — in the words of Judge Roger Vinson — giving Obama the right to make us all eat broccoli.

Critics cry foul, or worse yet, hypocrisy.

But top GOP senators say there’s nothing inconsistent with their position: It’s OK to ask people to buy health insurance, as long as it’s not a legal mandate and as long as the U.S. does everything in its power to help.

“There’s no question” that people have a responsibility to have health coverage, said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has introduced legislation to repeal the individual mandate. “But there may be ways to provide incentives to get people to get coverage for themselves.”

The freedom for people to make their own decisions on health care is so important, Hatch said, that the government shouldn’t override it in the name of personal responsibility. “That’s a tough issue because you’re talking about American liberty — liberty to make your own choices,” Hatch said.

The “free rider” argument was central to the Democrats’ case for the mandate. “What it’s saying is ... that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance,” President Barack Obama said of the individual mandate in September 2009, during the height of the health care debate.

And yet, even Obama was not always a fan of the mandate. It was one of the few slivers of daylight between him and Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in 2008.

Republicans don’t argue with the point that people should take responsibility for themselves and get health coverage. They just think there are ways to encourage people to do that without forcing them to buy health insurance they can’t afford.

So their message going forward will be: Make it cheaper, and people will get it.

Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee wants to find ways to sell health insurance that doesn’t have to offer all the benefits required in every state, which he says drive up costs. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine would provide “generous tax credits” and let health insurers sell plans across state lines so they can escape some of the expensive benefit requirements.

And Sen. John Cornyn of Texas would encourage more people to buy health savings accounts, which are linked to high-deductible plans that, in his view, hold down costs by giving people an incentive to spend less.

“The system works better when people buy health insurance,” Alexander said. “One way to help them do that is to lower the costs ... so that people will want to buy it.”

Readers' Comments (28)

Folks, pay attention to the pols on either side of the aisle who think that there is a federal solution to the health care issue. They do not seem to realize that we all have now seen that the federal government can't run a coin operated crapper.

Governments' role in this matter is that of an expediter between the private sector and the people. By removing many of the cost inflating regulations, the price of health care plummets. By eliminating the state-controlled mandates the price of insurance will drop. (including tort reform)

Lastly, the illegal immigration problem has to be fixed. As long as the borders are open and we offer free health care, it ain't gunna be fixed.

I think that the Republicans in Congress, should give the Democrats a reality check, by voting on bills that would require all Americans, because they exist, to buy a gun or buy Federal bonds or buy War bonds. Then maybe they would realize what a Pandora's Box they have opened with Obamacare. This is not about health care, it is about liberty.

Outed again! Republicans are seriously hypocritical. They had rather have society continue to pay the health care bills of those who desire to remain on the public dole for their medical needs instead of paying their own way.

Obamacare is unconstitutional, and never should have been passed! My 62 years of experience has taught me that you can not believe a politician. The repeal Obamacare move is great, but it takes the attention off of another promise the Republicans made - to cut spending.

What have they done in that area? Well, the majority of Republicans voted for the Food Modernization Act since taking over Congress. The Food Modernization Act added $1.4 billion in new spending and created another big government bureaucracy to carry out these new rules. As a result of the Food Act, the federal government will have to hire over 17,000 new bureaucrats to enforce these new rules.

They claimed to be against Obama's agenda, but the majority voted for Obama's homosexual agenda. They claim that Obama moved to the middle - the same lie they told during the Clinton administration that saw such Clinton agenda bills as NAFTA and GATT passed. Oh, lets not forget the changes to Fannie and Freddie that caused the current housing bust.

Let's not forget the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that prevented banks from speculating with depositors money - that caused bank failures and created the big bank bailouts. Now they say Obama is moving toward the middle. I say Bull Sh__.

"Freedom" in the context of the health insurance mandate is just a canard. The "freedom" HCR opponents are really talking about is the freedom to not be taxed to help poor folks get health insurance they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.

It's a fundamental proposition: progressives want to ensure that everyone is covered with government help if necessary, conservatives want only the market to provide a solution even if that solution only results in coverage of a small proportion of the uninsured.

Did you ever have a day of Déjà vu? I’m on a roll because the past few weeks have all been Déjà vu to me. The current Egyptian revolt sponsored by the Muslim Brotherhood brings back memories from the Carter years when the Muslim brotherhood helped overthrow the Iranian government.

And, memories of the Clinton administration are fresh as Republicans clamored for cutting the budget, and the first thing they do after the election is pass another big government, big spending bill like the Food Modernization Act that added $1.4 billion in new spending and created another big government bureaucracy to carry out these new rules.

They said they were going to stop Obama’s agenda, but the majority of them voted to repeal the military’s moral code of conduct rule. Yeah, it has all happened before. They claim Obama has moved to the middle, like they claimed Clinton did, but in reality, the Republicans moved left – just like they did when Clinton was in office.

Their wisdom and determination to stop Clintons destructive agenda got us NAFTA and GATT. It also got us the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. We can give thanks to politicians for the economic state we are in, but I sure not one of them has enough intelligence to see where we have been, or where we are going.

The reason being, there is clear legal precedent giving congress the power for the individual mandate.

And don't get confused. Just because this exact situation has not happened, does not make it unconstitutional.

Why is it constitutional? Primarily because of the commerce clause and the nessissary and proper clause.

The commerce clause gives congress the power to regulate the medical and insurance industries.

The nessissary and proper clause gives congress the power to use the individual mandate when regulating the medical and insurance industries.

Don't believe me? Ask Robers and Scalia:

Scalia in Gonzalas v. Raich (2005):

As we implicitly acknowledged in Lopez, however, Congress’s authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws directed against economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” 514 U.S., at 561. This statement referred to those cases permitting the regulation of intrastate activities “which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.” Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S., at 119; see also United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 118—119 (1941); Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S., at 353. As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” 315 U.S., at 118—119.

We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

THE AUTHOR FAILED TO NOTE IN 1993, ORRIN HATCH CO-SPONSORED A BILL IN RESPONSE TO HILLARY CARE WHICH HAD AN INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE MANDATE VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE RECENTLY PASSED. CHUCK GRASSLEY WAS ALSO A CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL AND WAS IN APPROVAL OF THE MANDATE UNTIL RUSTY THE CHICKENHAWK SAID HE WANTED OBAMA TO "FAIL". THEY ARE HYPOCRITES OF THE HIGHEST ORDER.

Well, you don't need car insurance from birth to death and if i make the decision not to drive then i don't need insurance. You also don't get fined if you refuse to drive and purchase car insurance. My insurance rates have skyrocketed since the Democrats have passed this unconstitutional B.S.

Well, you don't need car insurance from birth to death and if i make the decision not to drive then i don't need insurance. You also don't get fined if you refuse to drive and purchase car insurance. My insurance rates have skyrocketed since the Democrats have passed this unconstitutional B.S.

Exactly what is the constitutional argument for the individual mandate not being unconstitutional?

Why do even recent rulings from two conservative justices, Scalia and Roberts, seem to support the constitutionality of this mandate under the commerse and nessissary and proper clause?

Really. Try and back up the drivel you repeat. Hint: Cable news rarely helps.

I guess to understand the reason why Obamacare is unconstitutional, one whould have to read the Constitution, which states, Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

What does regulation of commerce mean? "Regulation of commerce entails regulating the manufacture and transportation of goods across state lines and with foreign countries to include the Indian tribes".

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce "among" the several states. That does not give them the power to force citizens to buying a product of any kind.

Those that argue the Constitution gives the government the power to force citizens to buy anything do not understand common English, or they haven't actually read the Constitution. If they are correct, that mean the Constitution also grants the Feds the power to force the Indian nations and foreign nations to buy insurance too. Hog wash!

Our founders rebelled against England because of regulations and taxation that pales in respect to what our government has imposed on us. And, if you think that you have represenation, you had better take a good look at how Obamacare was passed - against the will of the people, with behind closed door deals, payoffs, and vote buying at the taxpayers expense.

Our founders would have revolted even faster if King George had passed regulations that required all citizens to purchase tea from the crown. Does anyone actually believe that our founders would support such a mandate let along put it in the Constitution? The aim of the Constitution was to limit the federal govenrments power - not give it totalitarian power to rule like a dictatorship!

I guess to understand the reason why Obamacare is unconstitutional, one whould have to read the Constitution, which states, Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

What does regulation of commerce mean? "Regulation of commerce entails regulating the manufacture and transportation of goods across state lines and with foreign countries to include the Indian tribes".

You guess? LOL!!!!

I will go further. To understand why the individual mandate IS constitutional, one would have to both read the constitution, AND understand how the courts have interpreted it (something you obviously need to look into).

What you just did, was tell us how you wish (or those who fed you that drivel) the constitution had been interpreted. Which is why you did not give us any reason based on past rulings as too why you thought it was unconstitutional.

--------------

Commerce clause.

The insurance industry, encompassing 17% of our economy, is clearly interstate commerce. It is the very type of thing the founders were addressing when they put the commerce clause into the constitution. The reasoning is there are economic issues that are national issues and cannot be properly addressed by the states.

But if you do not believe me, ask Scalia:

As we implicitly acknowledged in Lopez, however, Congress’s authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws directed against economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” 514 U.S., at 561.

We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

Now, since the individual mandate is with out a doubt "rationally related to the implementation of a constitutional enumerated power", (the commerce clause and the ability to regulate the insurance industry), it is perfectly constitutional.

Those that argue the Constitution gives the government the power to force citizens to buy anything do not understand common English, or they haven't actually read the Constitution. If they are correct, that mean the Constitution also grants the Feds the power to force the Indian nations and foreign nations to buy insurance too. Hog wash!

Those that argue the constitution does not give the government the power to enforce an individual mandate do not understand the constitution, it's history, or the legal precedent that effects how it is interpreted.

This is why they use terms like, "Hog wash!", instead of making an actual argument as to why it is unconstitutional using evidence such as past court decisions.

In addition, the fact that they think the constitution gives the government the power to force people to buy anything on a whim, do not understand why and how the constitution grants this powere in this circumstance.

The government, for example, cannot simply force you to buy brocolli, like Vinson suggested. He should actually understand this. There has to be clear logical reasoning as to how the statute relates to a constitutionally granted power, and a rational relationship between the statue and the end the statute means to address.

Mr. Nather is such a typical leftist that he will twist all common sense around in circles in his attempt to promote and support this Obama man-child and his disaster called ObamaCare.h Silly Mr. Nather in his foolish try, no one believes the constant lies of Obama.

I favor the individual mandate because it solves both the free rider problem and the moral hazard problem.

As an alternative I believe we need to ration medical care and particularly emergency room medical care to those without insurance and no ability to pay. That means changing laws that require providers to treat uninsured patients in life threatening situations. That would cut provider costs substantially.

It is hypocritical to require providers to give healthcare away for free allow individuals to game the health insurance system, buying it only when they know they are going to benefit from it.

Obama's defense team (with a straight face, I presume) argued ...before a real Judge....that the "inactivity" involved in a U.S citizen not buying or selling a product actually constitutes "an activity" and therefore falls under the Yes !! Inactivity now equates to activity in the world of Obamacare.

If I, of my own free will, decide against buying that car this year.....then my lack of activity has deprived commerce the activity of my involvement and my money (and taxes). That's how real lawyers *******ized the commerce claus and somehow reach a conclusion that 280 congress people have power (devined in the commerce claus) to order us to buy a product. In my example....it's a car.

That group of 16,000 new IRS employees will also keep track of me and punish me with fines for every following year that I refuse to buy that car...as I made a decision to use an alternate form of transportation. How will they manage to keep track of my inactivity.....now with its "new meaning" of "activity?" On my tax-filing form....the question will be there, "Have you purchased that car yet and if you have...include proof of purchase with the filing of your tax form.

If you are still refusing to buy that car...then the fine imposed wil be deducted from your refund. The fines will be higher with each following year and could lead to imprisonment.